Getting a theory of everything by ditching tenet of physics

A few recently published papers indicate that the long-running attempt to unite quantum mechanics and relativity might be finally seeing some compelling progress. A long-cherished tenet of physics, the Lorentz Invariance, is the first casualty.

Remember the EPR paradox, where an experiment showed that entangled particles violate Bell's inequality? One way to understand that from a pedestrian viewpoint would be to have the particles talk to each other faster than the speed of light.

To prevent time paradoxes from communicating faster than light, one could have a preferred reference frame from which all faster-than-light communication appears to go forwards in time. That would mean ditching Lorentz invariance for the exotic processes that allow faster-than-light communication.

So it almost seems reasonable that dropping Lorentz invariance is the key to reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity.

I think the 4 dimensional space would be 3 dimensional space along-side time and the variable outcomes that could take place. Laypersons usually think of "dimensions" as being occupied by 1 variable ... EG: length, width, height. But what we know as reality is the merging of various variables which can have different dimensions to them. So, we have our 3d space merging with 1d time to create a 4d reality. Time is constant, but 3d space can do different things as time goes on.

EG: two cars driving down the road. One car might turn. They could continue driving on. They could collide. There's different outcomes, even though time is constantly moving forward in all situations regardless of outcome.

I guess you can reduce that down to 2 dimensions when you reduce it down to just one assumed outcome, and fix it along time. It could be akin to geometry/algebra, where if you look at a very miniscule distance on a curve it will look like a straight line, and thus you can simply things on such a small scale and use line formulas to do modelling for curves in some cases.

This is interesting because I was reading in Scientific American a few months ago that some researchers may have fixed one of the big problems with loop quantum gravity -- that computer simulations generally show the universe collapsing on itself -- by assuming causality. In other words, by assuming time does not commute.

Previously, causality had not been a basic assumption of the theory. It had been hoped that causality would be an emergent property of the universe, not a basic component of the underlying system.

The SciAm site seems to be down or I'd look it up. It's possible that these articles are the formal write-ups of the same work, which at the time of publication in SciAm were still at the "we've run a few successful computer simulations and are working on our formal paper" stage.

I suspect the "2D at small scales" result is more complicated than Tundro Walker's supposition. It has more to do with the universe being fractal and how adjacent points in fractal space can/can't interact with each other.

To me a fractal universe would make sense if for no other reason than fractal spaces are similarly non-intuitive as quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by sep332:Time is only one dimension, so it has only two directions: forward (later), and backward (earlier). The theory predicts that moving forward in time is different from moving backward.

I'm not aware of time ever going backward in reality. Sure, gravity or superfast travel can slow down time, practically to a standstill near a black hole or close to light-speed. But flowing backward is sci-fi, I'm pretty sure*.

Also, I assumed laserboy was talking about time flowing at different speeds depending which spatial axis you were traveling on.

* (yeah, there's the whole argument that if you rearrange all the atoms and fields of a closed system to a previous state, you've effectively reversed time, but thermodynamics kills that possibility on any significant scale)

Our perception is that time flows only forward. It's long been a philosophical question whether time does actually flow forward, especially since general relativity does not seem to require it. It would be very interesting for someone to show that the universe only works if time flows forward.

Bell's inequalities are easily soluble if you truly believe in the symmetry of physical laws with respect to time. We believe correlations based on past events are problematic but largely refuse to believe in correlations based on future events. Allowing for correlations based on future events, however, defuses all the bizarre metaphysics QM has spawned.

There's no need to sacrifice Lorentz invariance, and given how cleanly time symmetry solves the tension between QM and relativity, we should explore that direction more seriously.

Hardly the originator of the idea, Huw Price has given a rather non-technical exposition of this idea in his "Time's Arrow & Archimedes Point..." I've yet to see any serious refutations of his ideas, based on either philosophy or physics. I'd be really interested in such a refutation actually, as I want to write a paper pitting him against his opposition. But his opposition doesn't really seem to exist.

Originally posted by sep332:Time is only one dimension, so it has only two directions: forward (later), and backward (earlier). The theory predicts that moving forward in time is different from moving backward.

If time were just a single dimension, would it actually be able to move forward and backward? Doesn't the suggestion of its ability to move in 'directions' denote multiple 'dimensions'. If it were a single dimension, it would be a point, unmovable, static, the same from all perspectives. No? If time is movable, doesn't it need multiple dimensions to support its 'movability'?

If time were just a single dimension, would it actually be able to move forward and backward? Doesn't the suggestion of its ability to move in 'directions' denote multiple 'dimensions'. If it were a single dimension, it would be a point, unmovable, static, the same from all perspectives. No? If time is movable, doesn't it need multiple dimensions to support its 'movability'?

A single dimension is a line, not a point. A point is zero dimensions, a line is one, a square is two, a cube is three.

If time were just a single dimension, would it actually be able to move forward and backward? Doesn't the suggestion of its ability to move in 'directions' denote multiple 'dimensions'. If it were a single dimension, it would be a point, unmovable, static, the same from all perspectives. No? If time is movable, doesn't it need multiple dimensions to support its 'movability'?

Given state of the Universe A, apply quantum probabilities to produce the next state state A'. Time is the expression of probability. It can indeed flow backwards (like undoing your move on a chess board) - that is the probability that the reverse outcome would come true. However time, while a linear dimension, is not universally coordinated. It permeates all of space. Not all outcomes will be reversed - in fact very few will. This creates the monotonically increasing illusion of space time. If your local region of space (element of a set of all outcomes in space-time) moves backwards, the other regions (elements of the set) may not. So if your set goes [0,0] -> [1,1] -> [0,1] i.e. your first element is undone, but you have a wholly unique universe. Then consider feedback effects of that pesky 1 sitting around affecting your chances of going back to 1. In this way all the possible solution sets of quantum probabilities creates an illusion of time as moving forward. It is because the universe is to large (in solution set space) that it can never effectively reverse.

I also like how this theory would help to explain relativistic effects.

It states his research interests are in "String theory and M-theory, with applications in quantum gravity, particle physics, condensed matter, astrophysics, cosmology, quantum geometry, ... "

I wonder if this idea is at all related to String or M-theory? From what I read in this blog, it appears not.

Personally, I find it quite encouraging that String Theory is *not* the "Only-Game-In-Town" after all. Even more encouraging that a String Theorist has not constrained his thinking to the String philosophy; an idea that may be "elegant" in principle, if not at all in practice, and may one day rise to the level of actually being wrong.

With his, along with the independent work of Daniela Klammer and Harold Steinacker, a new "elegance" appears to be emerging. A possible explanation as to why time seems to 'flow' in only one direction and may resolve Grandfather Paradoxes and the like. More importantly, the idea of being on the threshold of a working model of how something, (The Universe), can emerge from nothing at all, (Vacuum Fluctuations), is exciting.

I've always followed unification theories with an interested eye, but after reading this article I began to think: what if this was it? What if this was the answer, and we now have a Grand Unified Theory of Everything? Would it really make any difference to anyone but physicists?

Originally posted by ReaderBot:I've always followed unification theories with an interested eye, but after reading this article I began to think: what if this was it? What if this was the answer, and we now have a Grand Unified Theory of Everything? Would it really make any difference to anyone but physicists?

What are the practical applications of GUT?

Also, where can I get a wallpaper-sized version of that pic?

Every physics related discovery helps us, we just don't know how until an electrical, mechanical, or chemical engineer happens to study GUT.

Originally posted by Chuckstar:Our perception is that time flows only forward. It's long been a philosophical question whether time does actually flow forward, especially since general relativity does not seem to require it. It would be very interesting for someone to show that the universe only works if time flows forward.